1. Diary of an app! Will using mobile devices in qualitative research become the norm?
The advent of digital technologies, especially apps for mobile devices, has encouraged some to ask whether these could become the new norm for capturing diary-based data for qualitative research. In their post in the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, Laura Radcliffe and Leighann Spencer have pioneered the use of diary apps in their research and, whilst encountering challenges throughout the development phase, have found them to be easier and more efficient for researchers and participants, offering quicker and better access to the data.
The blog post says (quote): There was a significant gap in understanding and communication. A big early learning point came with the realisation that different versions of the app were needed for iOS and Android devices, with compatibility with both being essential as they wanted participants to be able to use it no matter what type of phone they owned. Everything takes twice as long as you might imagine because every idea for a screen has to be explained, shared, commented on, discussed, and agreed (again made more difficult by those language barriers), and must then be tested and piloted to iron out any technical glitches or problems. Unexpected costs such as publishing not just on the iTunes platform but also on Google Apps caught us similarly unaware.……….(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
2. How to thrive on academic criticism
Who among us has not internally screamed after receiving peer reviews that you thought were unduly harsh? Responding to critical peer reviews from academic journals is arguably the most important skill for securing an academic job – and while many graduate students try to hide it, most of them in doctoral programs at least flirt with idea of becoming a professor, notes Matthew Sanscartier and Matthew Johnston, in their post in the University Affairs Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Managing negative feelings, responding strategically to faceless peer reviewers, and tactfully negotiating supervisory and committee relationships are necessary skills in the academic game. A workshop was designed to get students thinking about the ways in which academic critique and rejection can be used as motivation for success, and how to productively tackle feedback from peer reviewers and faculty supervisors. There are two core learning objectives to the workshop. The first objective is affective: recognizing that rejection, and its associated negative affect, are necessary components of finding success in academia. The second is psychomotor: how to break down superficially intimidating criticism into smaller, manageable chunks.……….(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
3. Scientists and subscription journals tussling for power
Scientists are getting more and more interested in open-access journals. A recent controversy triggers long-standing debate over subscription vs open- access journals reports Fatima Arkin, in her post in the SciDev.Net Blog.
The blog post says (quote): Open access turns the traditional business model of journal publishing on its head. Normally, subscribers pay a fee to read journals, leaving authors to pay nothing to publish their work. Non-subscribers can still access the material, but only if they pay for the article that they want to read. With the newer model, authors are the ones who pay - either through their own pocket or via their institutions - and the published papers are freely available to anyone. This means their work can reach the widest audience possible. And this, ideally, means it has the best chance of stimulating understanding and innovation. The movement has grown steadily since then. And now, many institutions and funders, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Welcome Trust, require that the research they fund is made freely available. According to the DOAJ, the number of open-access peer-reviewed journals has increased by 17 per cent in the last year alone.……….(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
4. Levels of editing of a scientific paper
There are four key steps to crafting a paper and getting it ready for submission just as there are four levels for editing or reviewing a paper. Dawn Field, in his post in the OUP Blog, discusses these steps will help to develop and perfect the idea before it is read.
The blog post says (quote): Scientific editing is also about making sure the data provides enough evidence for the interpretations made and are presented in the clearest way possible. Scientific editing is about closing any holes in logic about the work done and making clear why things were done as they were, what might be done next, and how these findings advance the field. It is also about making sure the methods are described in enough detail that the work can be repeated. Co-authors will be contributing content, data, results, interpretation, discussion, and conclusion in the initial draft. Once circulated to others, they will comment on the scientific content of the paper as it is currently presented as if from the coauthor and peer-reviewer (journal editor) perspective.……….(unquote)
The full entry can be read Here.
Leave a Reply